Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 1967

Vol. 63 No. 10

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1967: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

This Bill is necessary to give legislative effect to the decisions of the Government announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement of 11th April last to increase the rates of non-contributory old age, blind and widows' pensions and unemployment assistance, to increase the rates of various social insurance benefits and pensions, to extend the duration of unemployment benefit and to increase the rates of social insurance contributions. In addition, the Bill includes a number of provisions designed to extend and amend the existing social insurance and assistance schemes in a number of ways. Some of these changes flow from developments in related fields, for example, the initiation of training schemes under An Chomhairle Oiliúna and the forthcoming introduction of a redundancy payments scheme; others, such as the modification of the trade dispute disqualification for unemployment benefit and assistance and the repeal of the special residence or employment test for unemployment assistance on persons moving into certain urban areas, are the outcome of re-examination of the problems involved.

The Bill is, of necessity, drafted mainly by way of amendments to the existing Acts. This method naturally tends to give rise to some difficulty in following the amendments which refer to existing provisions of the Acts without giving them in detail. I have endeavoured to have the explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill drawn up in such a way as to make clear what each amendment involves where the text of the Bill itself is not self-explanatory. I trust that Senators will have found the memorandum a help in their examination of the Bill.

The increases in the rates of payment on the Social Assistance side, which it is proposed to bring into operation at the beginning of next month, will mean an extra 5/- a week for all existing non-contributory old age, blind and widow pensioners. It is estimated that some 111,000 persons who are old age or blind pensioners will qualify for the increase and some 21,000 widows. These increases in the pension rates will enable the scale of means and rates of pension in each case to be extended to give an additional rate at the minimum of each scale payable to persons whose means are just outside the present means limit for any pension. The means limit, of course, rises automatically in respect of each qualified child.

The rates of unemployment assistance for persons in urban and rural areas are being incresed by 5/- a week for the recipient himself. A further 5/-will be payable where there is an adult dependant. These increases in rates of unemployment assistance at the maximum will have the effect of automatically extending the means limits for qualification for unemployment assistance by equivalent amounts, thus making eligible for assistance persons whose means are somewhat outside the present limits.

The increases in payments of Social Insurance benefits and pensions will come into operation at the beginning of January next and will provide an extra 5/- a week for recipients of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity benefit, widows', contributory, pension and old age, contributory, pension with an additional 5/- a week where an adult dependant's allowance is payable with the pension or benefit. In addition, the Bill proposes to extend the period over which a person can draw unemployment benefit from the present maximum of 156 days to 312 days in the case of persons aged over 18 years, including certain married women.

The additional 156 days benefit will be payable at the normal unemployment benefit rates, as increased under this Bill, for persons who have good records of employment as measured by a yearly average of forty employment contributions paid over the preceding seven years. For those who do not have such an average, unemployment benefit will be paid in the additional period at rates equivalent to the appropriate maximum rate of unemployment assistance payable in urban areas as increased under the Bill.

The extra expenditure on these increased rates and extensions of the social insurance scheme makes an increase of the contributions payable by employers and employees necessary. As mentioned by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement, the taxpayer in this country is bearing a higher ratio of the cost of social welfare than in other countries mainly because assistance services, which are financed wholly by the Exchequer, represent a high proportion of our total outlay. Even in the insurance services, however, the Exchequer bears more than the one-third of the cost which it was the intention that the taxpayer would contribute to the Social Insurance Fund when the scheme was set up under the Social Welfare Act, 1952. In fact, in recent years the Exchequer contribution has been nearer to 40 per cent than 33? per cent. The Government have decided with a view to restoring the original ratio that the whole annual cost of the extension of the duration of unemployment benefit, £2,107,000, should be borne by employers and employees and that employers' and employees' contributions should cover more than two-thirds of the cost of the benefit increases in a full year. It is proposed in the Bill, therefore, to increase the rates of Social Insurance contributions where all the insurance benefits are involved, by 3/2d a week, shared equally by employer and employee with appropriately lesser increases where some only of the benefits are covered. The ordinary rate of men's contributions will thus be increased by 1/7d to be paid by the employer and 1/7d by the employee, making the total contribution 18/- a week shared equally by the employer and employee. To this must be added, of course, the 2/1d paid by the employer in respect of occupational injuries insurance. A table showing the present and proposed rates of contribution appears in the explanatory memorandum. The increase in voluntary contributions will be 4d in the rate covering widows' and orphans' pensions only and 9d. in the rate which covers also old age, contributory, pension. It is estimated, on the basis of this year's estimates of expenditure plus the extra annual costs and the expected yield of the increases proposed in contribution rates in a full year, that the Exchequer contribution would still be of the order of 35.8 per cent of the expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund.

As in the case of Social Welfare Bills introduced over the past few years, this Bill includes a number of provisions involving miscellaneous changes in the various schemes which have been found to be desirable and feasible.

The more important of these changes relate to the disqualification of persons disemployed by reason of a stoppage of work arising from a trade dispute at their place of employment. At present such people are disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit or assistance irrespective of whether or not they are involved in the dispute. It is proposed in the Bill, at sections 8 and 15, to modify this disqualification which has been the subject of considerable criticism for a number of years. The amendment proposed in the Bill has been agreed with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on the understanding that the matter will be subject to review. The modification does not, of course, affect the position of persons who involve themselves in a trade dispute by refusing to pass pickets.

Another change also involves unemployment benefit and assistance. At present, a person who loses his employment through misconduct or who voluntarily leaves his employment without just cause or refuses an offer of suitable employment or who fails or neglects to avail himself of any reasonable opportunity of obtaining suitable employment may be disqualified for unemployment benefit for up to 6 weeks. The unemployment assistance code has a similar type of disqualification for up to three months. It is proposed—also in sections 8 and 15 of the Bill—that corresponding disqualifications should apply in the case of a person who without good cause refuses or fails to avail himself of any reasonable opportunity of receiving training provided or approved by An Chomhairle Oiliúna as suitable in his case.

Again, in regard to unemployment, assistance to persons moving from rural areas into certain urban areas is subject to the satisfaction of a special residence or employment test. This test has operated since the Unemployment Assistance Scheme commenced in 1934 and was introduced to discourage persons from moving from rural areas into those urban centres where the rates of unemployment assistance were at that time considerably more attractive. This argument is no longer of significance and the restriction of the free movement of workers is regarded as undesirable in the context of modern thought on the mobility of labour. In addition, it runs counter to the recommendation of the Commission on Itinerancy accepted by the Government that any difficulties in the way of payment of social welfare allowances to itinerants should as far as possible be eliminated. The special test is one such difficulty in the case of itinerants wishing to settle in urban areas and it is now to be removed by section 14 of the Bill.

A further change relates to the question of training courses provided by An Chomhairle Oiliúna. Under the Occupational Injuries scheme an apprentice is statutorily covered while attending such a training course, if his attendance is with his employers' consent or is required by his employers' or under his contract of service. Unemployed persons on the other hand attending such training courses are not in insurable employment for any purposes and consequently would not be covered against injuries suffered in the course of training. It is proposed in section 16 of the Bill to provide that unemployed persons attending a course of training provided or approved by An Chomhairle Oiliúna will be deemed while so attending to be insurably employed for occupational injuries purposes by An Chomhairle Oiliúna, who will pay the necessary insurance contributions.

Two other provisions of the Bill arise from the effect which the proposed Redundancy Payments scheme would have on those social welfare payments where there is a means test. In sections 12 and 13 it is proposed to disregard payments under the proposed Redundancy Payments scheme in the assessment of means for the purpose of non-contributory old age, blind and widows' pensions and unemployment assistance. The purpose of this is to ensure that payments under the Redundancy Payments scheme will not adversely affect a person's title to benefit under any of the various social welfare schemes.

The existing provisions of the Social Welfare Acts in relation to social insurance have been modified by regulations in the case of teachers in national schools, vocational schools and secondary schools who are employed in a permanent and pensionable capacity so that apart from occupational injuries insurance they are insured only for the purposes of widows' and orphans' pensions. Teachers employed in new comprehensive schools established by the Minister for Education are not covered by these modifications and there is no power in the Acts to enable them to be thus excepted from full insurance. It is proposed in section 7 of the Bill to remedy the position and to enable these teachers to be treated for social insurance purposes in the same way as national teachers, vocational teachers and secondary teachers.

The last of the miscellaneous provisions is to remove an undesirable effect which an entry into insurance for the purpose of occupational injuries insurance only could have on a person's title to old age or widows', contributory, pension. If such an entry into insurance were to be taken into account for pension purposes, it could adversely affect title to pension by diluting the effective pensions insurance over a period during which the person could not pay contributions for pension purposes. By providing that the entry into insurance for occupational injuries cases only will be ignored for pension purposes and that a person shall be regarded as entering insurance for pension purposes on the day on which he first becomes an employed contributor paying contributions which count for those purposes. Section 11 of the Bill will restore the position to what it was before occupational injuries insurance was introduced.

It might be helpful to Senators if I were to summarise the cost of the various proposals in the Bill. On the Social Assistance side the total cost will be £1,980,000 in a full year. The extension of the duration of unemployment benefit will result in savings on unemployment assistance estimated at some £1,500,000 in a full year but much of this saving will be required to meet the extra expenditure on unemployment assistance arising from the abolition of Employment Period Orders. The gross cost of the improvements in the Social Insurance Scheme in a full year will be £5,123,000 that is £3,016,000 on the increases in rates and £2,107,000 on the extension of the unemployment benefit scheme. Allowing for an increased annual income to the Social Insurance Fund of £4,380,000 to be raised from the increases in rates of contributions, the cost to be met by the Exchequer will be £743,000 in a full year.

I have much pleasure in recommending this Bill to Seanad Éireann and I would ask for a speedy and favourable consideration of it.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The Minister has asked for a speedy and favourable consideration of this measure. I feel I can express the view of the House in saying that that will be forthcoming. Any measure introduced in the House which is intended to improve the lot in any way of our unfortunate pensioners will naturally be welcome.

There are certain aspects of this on which we would offer comment. We assert that the increase to be given which was awarded some time ago to take effect from August and January next has been offset by the increase in the cost of living so that the increases to be given will be only equal to around the cost of living increase. The cost of living figure has increased to the extent that almost 5/- more is required by housekeepers who exercise even the most diligent housekeeping administration relative to the necessaries of life.

When one puts on record that in very many instances perhaps only one partner may qualify for the increase, we can assert that the amount of the increase awarded to perhaps, the husband may not in any way meet the increase in the cost of living which had its impact on both husband and wife and, perhaps, a dependent family.

At the time of the Budget Statement much was made of the proposal to grant these increases. But the cold, hard facts are that the increased taxation necessary to implement these increases has been in being since the enactment of the Budget. It is only in August and in January that the benefits will accrue to those for whom the taxation was imposed, so that during the interim very many of the ultimate recipients will have contributed in taxation towards benefits which they have not yet obtained. One wonders when the point will be reached when there will be a real improvement in the lot of those people who are charges on our social welfare code.

It is a fact and it has often been said with justification that the best policy would be so to utilise the Budget as to transfer income from the better-off sections of our community to the benefit of those who are dependent on public assistance of one kind or another. For that reason, I regret that the Minister for Social Welfare did not avail of the occasion to prevail on his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to exclude hard-pressed tobacco from further taxation. For the first time in the history of the State this simple luxury, which in the main is used by the recipients of old age pensions, road workers and such like, has been subject to an increased tax and I suggest it is unfair to those particular people.

This increase will be added to a base which includes an extremely limited increase awarded to recipients of non-contributory old age pensions, with no means. This was an extremely harsh arrangement as shown by the example of an unfortunate old lady living in a house of such poor character that the rating authority did not deem it worthy of rating. Nevertheless, according to the manner in which the social welfare code was administered, this unfortunate person was assessed as having £1 per year income, because she did not have to pay for a corrugated iron shack which was not even subject by the rating authority to any levy whatsoever. By reason of this she was denied the 5/- increase. Therefore, it is regrettable that the increase being given was offset by the rigid interpretation of the code, at a time when the implications were that many people would gain from it.

I not that figures provided by the Minister would indicate that some 111,000 people will benefit on this occasion. This is certainly a startling improvement on the last measure, under which some 11,000 people only were granted the 5/- increase in the initial stages. The cost to the Exchequer of this measure is in the region of £743,000 net. This means that the measure has been availed of by the Minister for Finance to transfer the burden of financing it on to the shoulders of the employers and employees to a greater extent than ever before. Some consolation was taken from the fact that this compared rather favourably with the impact in other countries but we must recognise in this country that if there is a high ratio of cost of social welfare, it can be attributed to the high proportion of dependent people in our population. We must recognise the situation where so many of our wage-earning people emigrate with the unfortunate consequence of such a high proportion of dependent people in our population. One would hope that with the passage of time the employment situation would improve, to the extent that this ratio would improve, but, unfortunately, there are no indications of this. In fact, in this measure, the Minister will have to find the finances necessary to cater for practically 10,000 people more than at this time were recorded as being unemployed.

The extended social insurance benefits are to be commended in every way, except for the fact that the full burden falls almost entirely on the employers and employees. This now represents a substantial charge, almost tantamount to the employment tax in another country of £1 per week. That is a heavy impost on industry, on employment and on the workers, taking into account the high rate of taxation they have to bear also and the particularly high rate of income tax. Therefore, it is in these circumstances we welcome the measure, but regret that the finances passed for it could not have been directed sooner to the aid of the people awaiting the benefits. We express the hope that, notwithstanding the long overdue improvements enshrined in this measure, the situation in the years to come will be that we will have fewer people who will have a claim on the demands of our Social Welfare Department. It is hoped that the employment situation will improve to the point where the ratio of dependent people in our population will improve relative to those who are wage-earners and in a position to provide our people with that measure of support which is their right.

There is no doubt that the State and the Minister would have a most unenviable task if it was left entirely to the Department of Social Welfare to provide for all the people who would normally claim as dependents upon its charges, were it not for the active, unselfish and highly commendable activities, particularly in built-up areas, and diffused throughout the country, of so many voluntary organisations who are doing so much in their own way to look after the aged and other dependent people. These organisations are deserving of the highest praise which can be accorded to them for the work they are performing. It is with those remarks we welcome this measure, as a charge but, nevertheless, somewhat better instalment than we experienced in recent years regarding the improvement of the lot of social welfare recipients.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister for Education, when he was concluding the debate on the last measure, remarked that poverty was still the greatest problem in our society. I think we all agree with him, irrespective of the size of the house we occupy. We are dealing in this measure with a problem of poverty. Like many trade unionists, I thought for a long time poverty could be tackled and eliminated by trade union action, by wage increases. In fact, that is not so. You can raise the standard of living of organised workers but still leave the problem of poverty in our society. We are not alone in that. It is a problem which is, indeed, occupying them very much in Britain at the moment.

It seems to me that we can draw a general line with regard to poverty to show that certain people are likely to be in the poverty line. In this country and in our society they are the aged, with whom we are dealing to some extent in this measure, the members of large families, widows and orphans. With regard to the aged, we are, in this measure, giving some belated improvement. I do not want to engage in a political slanging match about this because I hope to be constructive in what I have to say. We are making some improvement there. What I want to suggest to the Minister is that as opportunity offers he would look at the age at which the benefits are paid to our aged. I think we all agree that 70 is too high an age. The Minister will probably equally say: "Well, look, it is a question of what we can afford, it is almost, I suppose, a question of priority as to how quickly we can go and what precedence we will give to various people in our community". I might suggest to him that whilst he could not reduce it to 65 immediately, he might start on a phased reduction; that perhaps next year he would reduce the qualifying age by one or two years and then, after a further period, reduce it again, because 70 is too high.

Not alone have we great poverty among people over 70 whom we assist to some extent but there is a lot of poverty, too, among people below that age. I would hope the Minister would see his way gradually to reduce the qualifying age. I know people under 70 can qualify for benefits, disability benefits. To my mind, this is a little limited. I would prefer to see an arrangement whereby the qualifying age for the old age pension would be reduced even on a phased rate. In regard to large families, we have the provision of children's allowances, which are not being altered in this Bill. There has been no real improvement in the level of family allowances in recent years, if my memory serves me aright. We have the problem, and I do not know if there is any easy solution of the large family. Inevitably there is pressure to have children's allowances paid at the same level to all children—there is political temptation, I suppose, to do it—but I want to draw attention to the fact that the hardship seems to be largely in cases of families where there are a large number of children.

In regard to widows and orphans, we are, in this Bill, making some improvements in the non-contributory benefits, and improvements, if I read it rightly, in the contributory benefits and I think the Minister is saying, in effect, that the cost of the improvements in both categories will have to be paid for by insured workers, the people who contribute. What I have to say about this generally is the need to extend the cover which in turn would increase the income from contributions and prevent hardship and a degree of poverty which exists because of our present arrangements. Insured workers are insured for various benefits, including the widows' and orphans' benefits. In non-manual employment where the income exceeds £1,200 they are no longer compulsorily insured for widows' and orphans' benefits but they have an option of joining as voluntary contributors. On the face of it, this seems to be all right. In fact, we all know that because of human nature, the neglect of people, they simply do not take up the option of continuing as contributors for widows and orphans. The problem arises when they die and leave their widows and orphans without any cover in this respect.

The solution, I feel, might be to abolish the £1,200 limit altogether. I do not quite see the sense of it. I do not think any of us would attempt to argue that the person who is in receipt of £1,250 or £1,300 does not need cover for widows' and orphans' benefits. No matter what he may be able to afford to do in regard to private insurance, it cannot deal adequately or in anything like the same measure as the State scheme can by way of insurance, because we have the situation that we are able to adjust the level of widows' and orphans' benefit and the other benefits periodically in line with movement in the cost of living and changing money values. We might argue as to the form on some occasions but we are able to maintain them at a reasonable level and at a level that no private individual can provide for.

We are probably being a little foolish in having this sort of limit, in imagining that because people are in receipt of a salary of about £1,200, they should be exempt from insurance and are not covered unless they become voluntary contributors and maintain their insurance in that way. I grant the Minister that there is an easy answer, a quick answer. He will be able to say: "We are giving them an option; they are allowed to contribute in their own right, to maintain their cover by way of paying the contribution." I am not quarrelling about the level of contribution. I am saying that we all know instances of people who have not continued with cover, who have not maintained that cover, with tragic results. They may have been insured for years and years, but they neglected it once they went over the £1,200, and their widows and orphans are not then covered. That gives rise to hardship. I suggest to the Minister that he should look again at this question of the £1,200—not simply to raise it but to abolish it altogether.

On the same problem, too many people unfortunately neglect to accept the option of continuing as voluntary contributors. Some of them die and this gives rise to problems. Others are now finding that they cannot go back to insurance. When you draw the attention of people to the risky situation in which they have left themselves and tell them that they should have maintained their cover for their wives, they find that because of the effluxion of time, they cannot now go back into insurance. I suggest that the Minister might look at this and allow people who want to provide this cover for their families into this insurance and not simply bar them because they have not taken up the option in time. There may have been many reasons. Some of them may not have taken the option because at the time the benefits were inconsequential, simply were not worth it. We have now reached a situation where in fact the benefits are worthwhile to any worker, irrespective of his income. I think we should—rather than dealing with the situation afterwards of trying to deal with their survivors on the basis of a means test— allow people and indeed encourage people to contribute when they are alive.

I also want to suggest that a fresh look might be taken at the scope of our insurance. Again, we have this traditional situation where certain employments are exempt from insurance. It is provided for in the rates of benefit which are going into operation on 1st January next year, if my date is correct. A table is set out as to benefits, the rates of contribution which will be asked from various groups of people. For example, for civil servants, local authority officials, teachers etc., there is a particular rate of contribution which in turn is related to the benefits or the cover they have. This is traditional and goes back to a situation when the cover was (a) unemployment benefit and (b) sickness benefit—what was known as national health. People in their employments were exempt, after a certain number of years in the case of some, because it was accepted and recognised that they were not liable to unemployment: they would come into pensionable employment with very little risk of their being paid off and, therefore, of being entitled to or having a need for unemployment cover.

Secondly, they were exempted from the national health scheme for similar reasons. If they were out sick they were paid during their sickness period and there was no need to cover them by insurance for sickness benefit. We still continue that sort of exempted employment and we have now brought in the old age contributory benefit which has begun to change the whole background of our social welfare legislation.

A fresh look might be taken at that problem. I do not imagine that any change would be looked at too kindly by the people concerned, but in their own long term interests and in the interests of the State in keeping contributions up to a reasonable level, the situation should be looked at afresh.

I noticed recently an anomaly where people have been promoted from wage grade to salary grade thus entering one of those exempted employments. They were no longer insured. They instead became members of a superannuation fund and, coming in late, found the strange contradiction that the older one is when one joins the higher the rate of contribution and the lower the eventual pension. When they came to retire they found that, having paid very heavy contributions to the superannuation scheme, they received a lower pension than if they had not been promoted at all, if they had stayed in their original grade, retired in that grade and got the benefits of the pension scheme which attaches to wage employment. This is a strange anomaly which needs to be looked at. It would be better business in the long run if we dropped the idea of exempted employment and gave the people insurance cover in this respect.

There is another aspect I wish to comment on. It is usually found that when people have been on pension for a long number of years the value of the pension deteriorates because of the change in the value of money and by the time they are 70 years many of them are in real need. If at that stage they came within cover for contributory pensions for which, if my suggestion were adapted they would have paid for while in employment, their problems would be considerably eased at that point of time. Why do we not help Civil Service retired people to some extent by supplementing their pensions in that way? However, it might be better if we had a fresh look at the question of exempted employment to see if it is relevant in the new situation and which, I hope will be a changing situation.

The changing situation I refer to is the need to relate benefits to income levels—in other words, wage related benefits—instead of flat benefits. I think we are now the only country in western Europe which has flat rates of contribution and flat rates of benefit. They have long been regarded as being inappropriate to deal with the problem we are supposed to deal with in regard to social welfare insurance. Even now Britain, which was rather old fashioned in these matters, is introducing income related superannuation. This will happen in the autumn of this year. I suggest the Minister might look again at this aspect so that we might have this change to income related benefits instead of the flat rate benefits to which we have been accustomed. This change would have general support of the trade unions but principally of the workers who contribute to insurance. It would be an improvement which would bring us into line with all western European countries.

Before concluding, I should like to remark that when the amendment being made in the Bill to make possible or feasible the section dealing with people affected by strikes was agreed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions the part agreed to was the phraseology that applied in Britain for years. It has become recognised that the section in Britain is not completely satisfactory. This has been all-round recognition. In Britain one aspect is under examination by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions. It is realised here that we have accepted the phraseology being used in Britain for years and the understanding is that if they work out there a more satisfactory phraseology to deal with the problem, the Minister will be prepared further to amend the legislation here. I hope that is correct, I thank the Minister for introducing this agreed measure to take care of that problem.

Mr. Rooney

This Bill involves an increase in social welfare benefits exceeding £2 million. It is designed to keep pace with the spiral of rising costs and prices. If we examine the weekly increases to be given we shall see nothing more is being given than the increase in the cost of living and the increases merely mean that social welfare classes will be enabled to meet those costs which have been driven up by the policy of the Government who have no prices and incomes policy. Those sections of the community have been affected very painfully by increases in the prices of the necessaries of life including food, clothing and rents. Those people are the weaker sections of the community and they are the hardest hit by increases in those sectors of our economy.

This Social Welfare Bill is designed to compensate them for those extra living costs and the need to try to make ends meet but this Bill does not apply to the thousands of silent sufferers living in respectable poverty. I refer to all those people who do not come within the scope of this Bill and who depend to a very great extent on charitable societies. In this affluent society in which we have take-overs of chain stores and all the rest of it there is also the poor and poverty stricken section of the community. It is hard to believe that in the past 12 months over two million free meals were distributed under the free meal scheme here in Dublin city. In addition to that, we can see long queues of people every day for the penny dinners.

Those are people who are outside the scope and benefits of the provisions in this Bill and the community in general owe a great debt of gratitude to the charitable societies and charitable workers who meet the need in so far as this section of our community is concerned. It is unfortunate that some practical steps cannot be taken by the Government to ensure that the lot of those people will not be made still more difficult. You have thousands of spinsters in this city and retired persons living on what were considered to be adequate pensions and allowances at one time. No effort has been made by the Government to stop the ever-rising level of costs and prices. The result is that those people who, when they retired felt they had a fairly comfortable pension, now find that they cannot make ends meet from their meagre pensions. Those are persons who are affected to a great extent by any action on the part of the Government which involves higher costs.

I should like to express appreciation for the explanatory memorandum. It is certainly a very good picture of the scheme of social services as they stand at present. It is easy to see at a glance what the various social welfare classes are entitled to get under the social welfare legislation. When I was examining this memorandum of the various benefits there, it struck me that the employers and workers are making a very substantial contribution towards, if you like, unemployment benefit. They also contribute towards the redundancy fund and make contributions to sections of society beyond themselves. In other words, the employer and the employee, when they are paying for the stamps at the end of the week, it is not solely for the benefit of the employee himself but instead the total cost of the stamp is employed for the benefit of other social welfare classes.

The obligation is on the State to devise a scheme whereby those outside classes, if I might call them such, will be looked after instead of expecting the workers and employers who are contributing heavily now towards the social welfare stamps to include in their payments a contribution towards social welfare classes, which in my opinion should be met entirely by the Government. I am always intrigued by the fact that when the Budget Statement is made and when the social welfare benefits are increased it is always mentioned that the payments will not be made until a future date.

We have a situation at the moment in which the old age pensioners apparently will not receive their increase until early August. The same applies with regard to the increase for unemployment benefit. I cannot understand why the Government will not consider making those benefits retrospective. We find every day in the week claims for adjustment of incomes and it is rarely that you see a decision that incomes will be increased on and from a date one month ahead or six months ahead. The increase is usually retrospective. The argument may be that the negotiations have been going on and if a decision were reached on such a such a date the payment would have taken effect on that date and that that is the excuse for retrospective payment.

We have what is called the cost of living index. Surely it would be possible for the Government to consult that index and decide that on a quarterly date the incomes of the social welfare classes were reduced in value by increased costs and increased prices which took place on many occasions by the authority of the Government, with the permission of the Government and by the action of the Government. The incomes of those people are reduced in value to the extent of that increased cost.

As I say, we have the index figures. We have quarterly index figures which show changes of one point or more in the cost of living at certain times. Social welfare benefits should be adjusted back to those particular dates instead of being promised at a future date. As I say, the increased rates for unemployment benefit do not come in until next January. I cannot see why those people have to wait until next January. When the Budget was being decided on and it was shown that there was a case to justify those increases, those increases should have been made retrospective. Instead of that the Minister came in on 11th April, or whatever date it was, and he said that as and from January, 1968, he will make a change in the benefits available to that particular class of people. The same applies to old age pensioners and others. It should be possible and so arranged by the Government to make those payments immediately available as soon as they are announced or even retrospective to the effective date on which the increase was justified.

There is no point in pretending that an increase of 5/- or 10/- a week in the scale of old age pension or any other benefit is a gesture on the part of the Government, that it is a gift or a present to those people. Examining the costs and prices, the increase in most cases has been more than justified, and is given whenever the Minister, usually the Minister for Finance, feels he is justified in giving those increases having regard to the fall in money values and the rise in prices and living costs.

It is probably an administrative point in relation to the increase for occupational injuries, but I am just wondering what would be the position of a person in certain circumstances. I know that the technical position is that when a person is going to take up employment he is in a position to put his social welfare card into the hands of his employer before he begins working, but everybody knows that that does not take place. A person goes into employment and starts work for the employer, who says: "You had better leave in your card." In the average case it comes in within a reasonable time. Other times it does not come in for months, and, of course, other times it does not come in until the end of the half year when the employer is going to stamp the card for the half year or even for the full year.

The point I want to make is this: the Occupational Injuries Act now apparently relieves employers of the liability to pay weekly compensation for a person who becomes incapacitated as a result of an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment. Supposing that the person never had a social welfare card or that his card is not stamped up to date, or supposing that his employer did not see that it was stamped. Apparently at the moment the employer is not liable under the workmen's compensation Acts for the payment of weekly compensation arising out of and in the course of his employment where it comes under the definition of an occupational injury. I should like to know as a matter of interest from the Minister, if it is in order in this debate, what is the situation of the man who has no social welfare card or has not got it stamped and who meets with an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employer is now only liable at common law for the payment of compensation to the injured employee, and in my view would not be liable in so far as the Occupational Injuries Act applies. I should like to know who would pay weekly compensation to the person in that position who had not a social welfare card or had not it stamped at the appropriate time, at the time when the accident occurred causing this occupational injury and consequent temporary incapacity which would entitle him to a proportion of his weekly earnings.

I should like to say that, of course, I welcome the increases which are applied here to the social welfare classes concerned. I know that this is keeping pace with increased costs and the demands of a higher standard of living. I suppose that we will never see the day when our social welfare benefits will be called generous and more than sufficient, because, examining the scales here, it is obvious that it would be very difficult for the people receiving this money to make ends meet. How they do it is a mystery when we examine just what people get for a week.

We see here people getting old age contributory pensions of 65/- a week. Everybody knows that at present even the rents of council houses have gone up very substantially. Then you have, of course, electricity and other services associated with normal living standards, you have food and clothing, and it is certainly a mystery how these people are able to make ends meet on these incomes. The most we can say for them is that at least they are higher than they were last year.

Mr. Yeats

Higher than in 1959.

Mr. Rooney

What was the cost of living then?

Mr. Yeats

They are higher than in 1959.

Mr. Rooney

What was the cost of living in 1959? You kept the old age pension down for 16 years at 10/- a week from 1932 to 1948.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

I am sure that Senator Rooney knows that he must address the Chair, and when he says: "You kept them down" I can assure him that I did not.

Mr. Rooney

I would not accuse you of doing something, Sir. When Senator Yeats is doing his devilling he ought to look back at the period from 1932 to 1948 and see what the old age pensioners were getting.

Mr. Yeats

There is a big difference between 25/- and 65/-.

Mr. Rooney

If Senator Yeats saw what the cost of living was between 1932 and 1948 he would not be proud.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Government are firmly committed to a policy of increasing at every possible opportunity the pensions and benefits paid to those most in need. This is my text, and it would be Senator Rooney's text only he forgot to produce his records with it. One would imagine from listening to his professions of doom and raven croaks that here we did not have a reasonably constructive and certainly a positive effort by way of an increase of the very essential benefits that are payable first of all to the widows and orphans and also to the insured classes.

I think all of us agree that with every new piece of legislation introduced here about the social welfare code particularly we all become more conscious of just what has been done or is being done and of the need to take a more positive and fresher attitude in this particular field. But I think that in fairness to the Minister there are certain definite indications in this legislation which give promise that we are perfectly aware of the fact that our social welfare code such as it is has not needed just an increase in the payments but also a broadening of its scope so as to make it more comprehensive and more suitable to present needs. I refer particularly to the fact that I think that the Minister has been rather less than fair to himself when he said that the Bill was necessary to give legislative effect to the provisions of the Budget. It has done a good deal more than that.

Senator Murphy referred to what must be a matter of concern to all trade unionists, the disqualification from benefit which hitherto applied in the case of those involved in a trade dispute. Seeing that trade disputes are having more wide effects than on previous occasions, the provision in the Bill is obviously a very desirable step, and also one which acknowledges the fact that trade disputes are not nowadays tainted with the anathema they might have been 30, 40 or 50 years ago. This is certainly an advancement, and though it is one that will be kept under review it should be welcomed by all here who have the interests of the workers and of the trade unionists at heart, including, of course, the members of the Labour Party.

Acting Chairman

It is about 6 o'clock. Perhaps the Chair might get some guidance on what the House wishes to do.

Mr. Murphy

I think we assumed an agreement to sit on and finish this measure.

Acting Chairman

Very good.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I certainly will be brief from now on. There is also the suggestion that the residence qualification for unemployment assistance be removed. This must meet with the approval of all concerned, and particularly the itinerants, a class with whom we are very much concerned, who have been severely restricted in this matter. The disregard for redundancy payments in assessing the qualification for non-contributory pensions, and also the fact that unemployed persons on training courses are coming within the scope of insurable employment for the purposes of occupational injuries, are all positive and enlightened steps. They show the type of attitude we expect and demand, and which we will continue to demand, under our social welfare code. It is wearisome at this stage to go into details of the benefits that have accrued. If one considers the number of recipients of old age and blind pensions—the Minister has indicated a figure of £111,000—and if one considers that we have a higher proportion of people than most other countries in receipt of social assistance, one sees that probably our most effective contribution here and elsewhere is in greater productivity and greater effort. We all agree that we are prepared to make even more available but this must come from our own co-operative efforts.

I should like to think that in this way we would see less restrictive attitudes on the part of some, be they employers or employees, who would in many ways tend to lessen national productivity as a whole. They should remember that in doing so, in restricting our national output, they are not just touching the pockets of those who can afford to pay. They are getting at the kernel of the problem because, as the Minister has explained, the more that is available from the Exchequer the greater will be the benefits for distribution, despite what Senator Rooney had to say.

Mr. Murphy

Is the Senator referring to the legal profession?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Amongst others. I should like to suggest that the general intention of our social welfare code, apart from introducing increases where possible, should be to make adequate allowances for providing services which may not now be subject to social welfare assistance or remuneration, that is, allowances for relatives of people who are disabled. On this, the Occupational Injuries Act which was passed through this House showed a desirable innovation in that field, in that maintenance allowance for those who are entitled to occupational injuries benefits has been introduced for the first time. I should like to ask the Minister to consider extending that type of assistance and in doing so it would probably reduce the overall cost to the State. Many old age pensioners and widows who cannot properly be provided for at present in their own homes are being provided for in hospitals and homes under the local authorities and otherwise. One feels that the general cost is substantially higher where they are being cared for away from home than they would be were an allowance given to them in a normal comfortable home. This is the type of thing we should consider. I know there is a grave problem as to whether suitable care and nursing is available, and this is certainly being made available in all these homes and hospitals.

I would suggest to the Minister that many of these highly commendable committees for the care of the aged which are now operating in many towns throughout the country should be brought within the scope of the social welfare code as far as possible so that the necessary maintenance and care will, if possible, be made available at home.

There are one or two points of detail to which I should like to refer arising from recent experiences. In the case of non-contributory old age or widows' pensions I understand that, taking the case of a farmer, where a widow or non-contributory pensioner is the actual owner of a farm in his or her own right an allowance is given in respect of family employed. In other words, some allowance should be made in the actual means assessed in respect of sons who may be employed on the farm. I understand this very desirable allowance is not made available for some reason in the case of a person who becomes entitled to land on intestacy. There appears to be the anomaly that a widow, whose husband was the registered owner dies, is not apparently entitled to payment of an allowance for wages paid towards the family. Were she to have acquired this property in her own right rather than on intestacy she would. I should like to have the Minister's observations on that.

The general attitude of the House speaks for itself and I do not think we should worry ourselves about individual provisions. The Bill is welcome and all Bills of this nature will continue to be welcome and we will demand that they will continue to come before this House.

Mr. J. Brennan

I, too, am grateful for the arrangement to allow the House to continue until this piece of legislation is finished and I promise not to be too long in my reference to the speeches. I hope to reply by way of information rather than by way of replies to criticism. The criticism offered was rather limited and, indeed, much of it was constructive. That was good and for that reason I am pleased.

This Bill is merely following the same trend as many of its forerunners through the years, in making better provisions, improved rates and extended scope under the social welfare code on the social assurance and social assistance sides. This year the Bill has been more generous than before. I should like in that context to say that were we to be guided by the increase in the cost of living index we would provide a mere 2/- per week increase to the various recipients. Instead of that we went up to 5/-. I am not saying it is a magnanimous gesture but it certainly is better than previous occasions.

One is limited to certain very definite financial resources that are available. The financial resources at any given time can not be entirely scooped up by any one Department. Every Minister can easily prove that he could use more money in this particular direction, particularly my Department. We must, however, have regard to other Departments, many of whom provide social services too. Take the Department of Education, the Department of Local Government, all these provide social services in a big way which, in the ultimate, are for the benefit of the weaker sections. In addition to the actual improvements in the rates and some improvements in the scope of the code, we have been able to tidy up quite a lot of loose ends in this Bill, many of which had been the cause of a good deal of high-rate tension by people who felt aggrieved in the past. That is very definitely a step in the right direction. I am not saying that we do not, as time goes on, check other anomalies, to further extend the scope of social welfare in keeping with what are modern trends, perhaps, in other countries. By and large, we can be guided by what we require here at home.

It is true what Senator Murphy said about granting pensions at the age of 70 here. We are one of the few countries now with that high qualifying age. I think we are one of the three countries left. Because we have records showing that our people are still healthy at that age may be one of the reasons why we have not been too anxious to bring the age down. The other reason is that it would cost a huge amount to do it but, at the same time, we have got to think in this direction. Indeed, the suggestion made by Senator Murphy that we should phase it down instead of coming down in one jump to 65 is a reasonable one. If we did think of reducing the qualifying age for old age pensions, we should do it in rather shorter steps, ultimately arriving at something more in keeping with many other countries. But, in many of the countries where pensions are granted at 65, retirement allowances are optional, a person has the right to continue working; he need not retire. In that way we compare favourably with many more countries than the three I referred to, in so far as it is optional for the person to retire at 65.

On the social insurance side we have provided, by arrangements made many years ago, that persons over 65 can draw continuous unemployment benefit. That is a step in the right direction which is virtually tantamount to giving them a retirement allowance at that age. The whole question of social welfare is one which will always be the subject of a good deal of sympathy, genuine or otherwise. No matter what figure we may arrive at, we will never reach a stage where we will be told we are paying enough. That is not to say we could not very much improve our benefits, if conditions permitted.

I think very few people would grudge old age pensioners, or widows with children particularly, more generous treatment than what we have been able to give them in the past. We are rapidly arriving at the stage where people will be prepared, in future, to share the burden of any taxes necessary to make that provision. After all we are, indeed, very much indebted to the voluntary bodies who do a lot of work for the aged; the people who undertake this sort of social work. They find it in their hearts to extend a great deal of their time and resources towards improving the lot of elderly and infirm people, and people in unfortunate circumstances, and when one considers the amount of effort there is in that field alone, one can appreciate that the taxpayers generally might not shirk their responsibility if they were asked to contribute something more in taxation towards the improvement of the lot of these people.

Senator Rooney made reference on the social insurance side of putting on the stamp, or making the contribution by the employer and the employee here meet the cost of the increased benefit and the extended time from six to 12 months. I thought I explained reasonably well in my opening statement it has always been regarded, and I think, accepted that one-third of the cost borne by the Exchequer towards any of these social insurance benefits is considered a sufficient and generous contribution. We find, on examination of the existing situation—prior to these improvements which come in January next—that the Exchequer contributions had actually gone up to around 40 per cent. Even after putting the entire cost of these improvements now on the stamp as from the 1st January next, the Exchequer would still be contributing around 35 per cent; still over one-third of the social insurance benefits. Therefore, if we have not on this occasion imposed part of the increase on the Exchequer, it is because we are trying to keep these benefits in line with what was originally anticipated they should be kept at; that is, approximately one-third by the employer, one-third by the employee and one-third by the Exchequer, or approximately that proportion. We are maintaining something better than that.

Senator Rooney made a remark I did not quite follow—that it was not fair to ask the employee and the employer to contribute so much to the benefit of other classes. He seemed to think the social insurance fund contributed in some way to the social assistance classes. This is not true. As a matter of fact, one of the best cases to be made for having the employer and employee pay more is that these benefits are entirely for the employees' own benefit and security, to make provision for his being ill or unemployed, as a result of a cessation of work, and the many other provisions he may wish to make against his old age or retirement. Even in the Occupational Injuries Act these provisions are all for his own benefit, and for no other person. The unfortunate people who do not benefit under the social insurance scheme are those who draw non-contributory pensions, unemployment assistance, widows' pensions, blind pensions; these are entirely financed from the Exchequer and come under the social assistance classes. In these cases, we have a means test.

Senator Rooney also made reference to the Occupational Injuries Act, in particular cases where the employer might neglect to stamp the employee's cards. While the Occupational Injuries Act might not be entirely relevant to the discussion on this Bill, I should like to point out to him that under the Occupational Injuries Act provision is made for such contingencies should they arise and should the employee find on sustaining injury that the employer had not fully paid up his contributions he will, nevertheless, be paid his occupational injuries benefit and we will pursue the employer for the contributions afterwards. The fact that he has not had the necessary stamps affixed at the time will not debar him from the benefits of the Occupational Injuries Act. I only say that by way of explanation because we are not discussing the Occupational Injuries Act here.

Senator O'Kennedy was worried about assistance on the holding and the assessment of means. I think it is correct to say, without consulting the actual letter of regulation in the matter, that in all cases where benefit from a holding is being assessed the work on the holding whether by the family or outside employees is taken into account in the assessment.

There are quite a number of things we could do in the Social Welfare code but as I mentioned in the Dáil I recently had occasion to do, even in a superficial way, some examination of the different codes which are enjoyed by the people of the six common market countries and other countries as well. One of the things which agreeably surprised me was that we are not too far behind at all, particularly in the scope of our scheme. Rates might not compare favourably in some cases particularly when you take it as a percentage of the national income or of the gross national product but here, again, we must be regarded as doing considerably well relatively speaking and, indeed, better than a great many countries particularly in relation to the scope of the Bill. I find that in the EEC countries while the Treaty of Rome calls for harmonisation of the social welfare codes there is everything but harmonisation as of now. In fact, there is such a wide variety of schemes and differences between the various countries that it will be a long time before we can be regarded as having what the Treaty of Rome refers to as harmonisation. However, the movement is in that direction and I can assure you that we are keeping in touch with the situation and, at the same time, quite independently examining our own code here and we will be prepared whenever it is possible to do so, to continue to improve and expand the scope of the schemes where necessary.

Senator Murphy I think made reference to pay related benefits. This is one field where there are possibilities and where we are contemplating doing something as early as possible. I should like to have examined, not merely pay related benefits but pay related contributions and get away from the flat rate which we operate at the present time. It calls for a good deal of examination and organisation.

Senator O'Kennedy referred to the relatives, where they are compelled to remain at home to assist the aged. This is a type of case which I have considerable interest in too and which our schemes do not cover at present. There are many old people who might have to be detained in institutions if it were not for the fact that some relatives have seen fit to remain at home and look after them and thereby deprive themselves of a means of earning a livelihood and very often for a very extended period when these people live to a ripe old age.

It is nice and I rather like it in my Department looking around the world now to see how much the people are clamouring for better benefits for the destitute people who, by some unfortunate circumstances or by the natural passage of years, find themselves in a position where they must, by a redistribution of the national resources, get some benefit not provided by their own past earnings. We have moved a long way and I hope that in the process we have not or are not losing what was a very strong parental affection which was prevalent in the past. Many years ago the old people were very well cared for by their relatives just because they were their parents irrespective of whether they had means or had any assistance from the State or any other organisation.

I would still like to think that our relatives feel that they have an obligation towards the parents who reared them and that the amount of money we pay them is only to make the burden lighter and where it is humanely possible that they will get as good care as they are entitled to and that the age of parental affection is not diminishing but rather growing with the years. Sometimes one feels nowadays that there is a desire to get away from the burden of caring for the old. We hear so many people clamouring for the building of homes for them. There is no home like their own home, at their own fire where they spent their lives and as many as possible should be kept there. I hope the relatives will feel some responsibility towards them. We could justify considerably increased payments in all cases and I hope every year will see some advancement in that respect but we have a number of things to take into consideration. We cannot bill the people too heavily to provide better assistance in every case where we would like it. By permitting the economy to expand, to continue expanding to a higher standard of living, we are automatically providing better means to make for better provision as time goes on. Many people in this country today, practically everybody, enjoys a higher standard of living than they did some years ago. This is one thing that is more obvious than anything else. However, there is a section of people who find themselves unable to take part in the race and these are the people to whom we have to come with whatever benefits and relief we can redistribute from those who are in a more prosperous position. In the last analysis this is the ruling spirit behind the social welfare codes. I hope that we will get the necessary support from the taxpayer as time goes on to give practical expression to the many words of sympathy which are expressed every year when what one might call this annual Bill comes before the House to give legislative effect to the provisions of the Budget.

I do not think there was any other question raised which I have not referred to. I was very happy with the way the Bill was approached by those who spoke and particularly for the constructive criticism from the Senators, particularly Senator Murphy and Senator O'Kennedy. I hope that as the years go by we shall continue not just to give benefits in accordance with any increase shown in the cost-of-living index but that we can do as we did this year, keep a few steps ahead until we eventually get those payments, particularly to the most deserving classes, on a higher level. When I refer to the most deserving classes, I do not wish to be taken as denigrating any sections, but widows left with no income and with small children, and aged people with few or no relatives to look after them are people in a special category who require particular assistance.

We have been able to come to the aid of some sections of the aged this year by way of meeting part of their ESB charges. That is something which will give them pleasure in that they will not be afraid to use a little extra current by way of light and power to give them a little added comfort, particularly during the winter. We have also been able to give them free public transport which is much better than giving them the money it would cost. This will encourage them to get around, to get out to visit their friends. I regard this as a good gesture which should meet with the approval of all.

I shall conclude by paying tribute to the people who give their time voluntarily to assist the aged and the destitute sections of the community by organising different ways and means of providing extra comfort for them. There will always be room for these organisations irrespective of what we may be able to do by direct State aid. We are very conscious of the good work being done by these organisations and in many ways we assist them to supplement the amounts of money available to them.

Again, I thank the Seanad for the reception given to the Bill. I should like to get all Stages today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.35 p.m.,sine die.